en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

June 2014: US Supreme Court reining in software patents (Alice v. CLS)!

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Talk:EU unitary patent and Unified Patent Court

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] SSP petition

This text was in the article:

To try and keep software patents out of the Community Patent scope, a petition has been launched here. Glen Moody explains some of the background to this on his blog entry, Help Stop EU Software Patents – Again.

It's not really about the EU Community Patent, so it belongs somewhere else. If you see a more appropriate place, please move it there. Ciaran 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Overstatement?

I take it this Wiki is supposed to be NPOV (albeit picking up parts of the debate that other sites may overlook). If I am wrong about this, I shall understand if all my edits are deleted. But it is quite exaggerated to say that the arrangement will consolidate 'software patents' in Europe. The Court of Justice (should it have the final word) might do this - or it might re-interpret the prohibition of 'per se software patents' in a way much more congenial to the 'no patents on software' school. More likely (this is a personal view) it would simply increase unpredictability in an area of law that was beginning to settle down.

There is a lot more to the Unitary Patent than the rights and wrongs of software patents, and many patent professionals dislike it for other reasons. Many think that the cost savings are exaggerated and that the system as a whole would be worse that what we have at present. But the politicians need a success, and have convinced themselves that they've got one (or at least something that can be presented as one). Pessimists compare the system with the euro. Good intentions are not enough. Twr57 13:57, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Hi. Thanks for the changes.
The text on this page has problems because it's currently a mix of older text plus my recent efforts to update it (and that I'm not completely up to date myself on this anymore).
  • You're right that the Court of Justice situation is incorrect. AFAICT, there is disagreement over whether the ECJ will have appeal competence or not. (I'd still worry about settled expectations though, even if appeals were possible.)
  • I thought "will" was ok because the sentence is "People expect that it will". Is "expect that it may" not too weak?
  • I've generally avoided talk of costs and effectiveness. Other websites provide general overviews (and pro-swpat groups try to shift the discussion to other issues) so this wiki's role is to dissect the software patents aspects and keep the focus on those aspects.
I'll try to come back to update this article in the first week of September. If there are any parts you can fix, or any other mistakes you can highlight, it would be helpful. Thanks. Ciaran 15:39, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

Oh, and by the way, 'hidden agenda' is at best POV, at worst rubbish. Do not write 'hidden agenda' but "this man said [reference] 'hidden agenda'"! Or perhaps better, something along the lines of 'possible side-effect that is causing concern in 'free software' circles' Twr57 15:06, 24 November 2012 (EST)

Yes. Thanks for pointing this out. Fixing that now... Ciaran 06:57, 26 November 2012 (EST)

[edit] Splitting this article

This article was written about a single proposal that would create two things (court and patent). Now that the proposal has been adopted, we need separate articles about those two things. I might just split this article, or might make two new articles and keep this as a record of the process that created the court and the patent.

Either way, this link should be added to one of the articles:

. Ciaran (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2013 (EDT)